From: Artie Gold
Subject: Prevailing CL FUD [was: Re: Little languages (part 3)]
Date:
Message-ID: <3FD92DCD.9080400@austin.rr.com>
Just saw this on news:comp.software-eng.
People *believe* this stuff.
Golly!
--ag
CTips wrote:
> Jonathan Allan wrote:
>
>> CTips wrote:
>>
>> Pardon me if I'm falling for something, but why is this any
>> different than a couple well designed, cooperating classes?
>>
>> Lisp? {shudder} 8-(
>>
>
> Be careful with your attributions - I didn't recommend LISP, Frank
> Adrian did.
>
> On the other hand, why (shudder) for LISP? Its not any worse than, say,
> Java. Both of them come with an elaborate run-time, provide garbage
> collection etc. Both of them can be interpreted or compiled. (Though
> LISP has the problem that there are subtle differences between
> interpreted and compiled semantics).
>
> About the only significant differences between (modern common) LISP and
> Java are:
> LISP can treat S-exprs as either code or data.
> LISP is designed to be used functionally, while Java is designed to be
> used imperatively, though both programming styles are available in both
> languages.
>
--
Artie Gold -- Austin, Texas
Oh, for the good old days of regular old SPAM.
>> (Though LISP has the problem that there are subtle
>> differences between interpreted and compiled semantics).
>> LISP is designed to be used functionally, while Java is designed to be
>> used imperatively, though both programming styles are available in
>> both languages.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
I think I'm going to have a hernia. I'm dying here.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Ha.. ah... ah.. hhhhhh... hhhhh... HAHAHA!
Oh, and I've TRIED to do some functionalesque programming in Java.
Uh, oh. Here we go again.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
--
Rahul Jain
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 02:59:33 +0000, Artie Gold wrote:
> Just saw this on news:comp.software-eng.
>
> People *believe* this stuff.
The scary thing is that I started it by pointing someone who asked about
e-commerce to Paul Graham's avg.html article. So it goes...
faa